MovieChat Forums > Primer (2005) Discussion > Primer is not complicated, it's obfuscat...

Primer is not complicated, it's obfuscated. (and good)

posted 10 years ago by Tim851
29 replies | jump to latest

It's virtually impossible to understand Primer the first time around.

That doesn't mean that people who complain about this are stupid and only like Michael Bay movies.

The basic plot is easy enough to grasp for a sci-fi fan. It's not even that complicated, really. But much of the detail is never shown, but only talked about in short, interspersed pieces of mono- or dialog, oftentimes in suboptimal audio quality. And the jump cuts don't help either.

There's a valid complaint about a director intentionally obfuscating his movie. If you're bent on it, you could edit "Sleepless in Seattle" in a manner that nobody gets it. Wouldn't elevate that movie.

I think - and you may disagree with me on that - it is the job of a storyteller to make sure any reasonably intelligent and focused audience will understand his story. There may be greater implications to a story, the stuff you talk to your buddies about at 2 am in a fast food restaurant after seeing the movie.

But the movie itself should be self-explanoratory. I studied film (though I ended up in a different profession) and more than one lecturer told us something along the lines of "If you have to explain your movie to a smart person, you've failed."

That doesn't make Primer a bad movie. Not at all. But would I think any less of it if I actually understood who that Granger guy was, why he followed them before they followed him, and how the hell he time-travelled......? No.

I had to write this, because reading through this forum, I discovered a few incidents where people who complaint about (parts of) the movie were dissed as dumb sheep seeking popcorn flicks, while the dissers pretended they were some movie elite.

[–] sdckapr 10 years ago

It's virtually impossible to understand Primer the first time around.

This has been discussed in several other posts http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/board/nest/186470336 discusses the ability to understand on first viewing, the original poster at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/board/nest/216699648 posits that it is impossible to understand the film at all.

I think it can be understood the first time around (at least understood what I think you are meant to get from the film.

But I don't believe you must be able to explain which timeline every avatar came from, which timelines they visited, and what their experiences were in every timeline to "understand". [If that is required, it is impossible to understand under any number of viewings since there is not enough detail to get that information]

That doesn't mean that people who complain about this are stupid and only like Michael Bay movies.

As a general statement, I agree. But in my experiences over the years, there are some who complain who come across as stupid, but there are even some who rave about this movie who seem stupid as well (but they may only be creating that persona online and may be highly intelligent in real life.

The basic plot is easy enough to grasp for a sci-fi fan. It's not even that complicated, really. But much of the detail is never shown, but only talked about in short, interspersed pieces of mono- or dialog, oftentimes in suboptimal audio quality. And the jump cuts don't help either.

I think the story is relatively simple even for a non-scifi fan: 2 friends discover a technological breakthrough and the secrets they create destroys their relationship. The plot appears more complex due to those secrets that the characters keep from each (and Carruth also keeps from us) and the fact that we are viewing multiple timelines and avatars.

And I wholeheartedly agree, that the sound quality the jump cuts (and other techniques) and even some of the dialogue makes it difficult to get a handle on.

There's a valid complaint about a director intentionally obfuscating his movie.

I am unsure how "intentional" it is. Based on the 2 films Carruth has created and his script for the unfilmed A Topiary I think his storytelling skills are a little weak, and he is too enamored with some film techniques (like you mentioned the jump cuts & overlapping dialogue, as well as the art of having characters say things that "sound right", but are meaningless, etc) and they are overused. And also (as you touched upon) the expository info told via voiceover with flashbacks, was just a poor choice.

I think - and you may disagree with me on that - it is the job of a storyteller to make sure any reasonably intelligent and focused audience will understand his story.

I for one agree, and while the film works on some levels, on others it fails [Though I and I think many others, give some things a "pass" due to the extremely low budget.

But would I think any less of it if I actually understood who that Granger guy was, why he followed them before they followed him, and how the hell he time-travelled......? No.

I, personally, don't have a problem about not knowing some things. We are not meant to know, since Abe and Aaron we see do not know. The "perspective" of the story (we only seem to see things within the timeline that "Protagonist-Abe" is occupying (though not always through his viewpoint).[I assume by "the hell he time-travelled" you don't mean the most probably answer is he used one of the boxes, you mean more how he found out about them, which one he used, etc]

I think it would have more obfuscated if we changed the timeline point of view...

[–] Tim851 10 years ago

I don't really have anything to add to your reply, but I want to say I read it, liked it and agree with it. :)

[–] sdckapr 10 years ago

I don't really have anything to add to your reply, but I want to say I read it, liked it and agree with it.

Thanks. Too often on these boards, there are people who don't read it but even so claim that they don't like it and don't agree with it

I really enjoy the ones where they read it, like it, but don't agree with it, since those are the ones I find have the most interesting and intelligent debates and discussions around the disagreements. It is the disagreements where, we can learn and expand our minds by seeing other viewpoints and considering other ideas and maybe even seeing something in the film we may have missed.

Take care.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] the-author 10 years ago

Primer is more of a puzzle.
Maybe it is the kind that says, "Answer tomorrow" rather than "answer on page 2"
When you know the answer is printed, you are tempted to cheat rather than think.
This film forces someone to think it out for themselves.
Most of the understanding or answers were in a forum discussion on Carruth's site.
That site was removed.(Why should he provide the answers?)
The only remaining part of that is The Primer Universe.

For Granger, try: http://theprimeruniverse.blogspot.com/2009/05/granger-incident.html

Best unknown feature at IMDB.com
http://www.imdb.com/features/video/browse/

[–] Tim851 10 years ago

Hm ... if I really view it as a puzzle, it does make some sense. Although with a puzzle they normally print on the box how it's supposed to look. *g*

[–] the-author 10 years ago

At least now the answers are out there (Carruth has stated this.)
I wish there was a film that was harder to solve than Primer.

Best unknown feature at IMDB.com
http://www.imdb.com/features/video/browse/

[–] nightmareswin 10 years ago

At least now the answers are out there (Carruth has stated this.)

to clarify, what exactly what carruth's statement (and when)?

[–] Makarov-324 10 years ago

I say it's a good movie even if you don't try to figure everything out like a puzzle.

Primer has an understandable story - unless you start trying to figure out the timelines & what went wrong etc. Then it's confusing for people. But the characters themselves can't even figure that out. Why should the audience be able to?

Sleepless in Seattle has no reason to be confusing. Primer does. So if you try to make it easier to understand, you're going to lose a piece of what makes this movie good. It's why I think BTTF Part 2 is the best Back to the Future movie even though a lot of people call it convoluted - time travel movies should be confusing!

Yes it would be a worse movie if the Granger incident was explained, in my opinion. The movie's from the point of view of Abe and he has no idea what caused it.

[–] sdckapr 10 years ago

The movie's from the point of view of Abe and he has no idea what caused it.

I have a nit to pick with this comment. I don't see that "The movie's from the point of view of Abe". There are plenty of things we see that Abe is not privy to and things Abe does off-screen that we are not privy to. I think what we see in the film is all from the standpoint of the timeline that one particular Abe is in (so we see things from the POVs of others who are in that timeline at times).

The film (to me) tries to suggest (and I think it is a red herring) that we are seeing from Aaron's POV since we learn about time travel as Abe explains it to Aaron. If the film was from Abe's POV we would have learned about it as he learned about it, and we would have also learned about the failsafe as he was creating it.

We can not know what about the Granger incident since neither protagonist knows about them, but we are also not privy to other things that Abe and Aaron have done in previous timelines (though we have more information to make inferences about those things).

[–] the-author 10 years ago

I say it's a good movie even if you don't try to figure everything out like a puzzle.

Of course. And it's better because it is a puzzle.

Best unknown feature at IMDB.com
http://www.imdb.com/features/video/browse/

[–] MaxRenn2 10 years ago

I agree that it's very difficult to "understand" all the plot points in the film totally after one viewing, or even after two viewings, as I watched it twice in one day. The film is not just a sum of its plot points, though, and the overall themes of the film shine through well even after just one viewing. As for the plot, I re-watched the drugging scene several times and still could not understand who was whom, and of course some of that has to fall on the budget and Carruth's limitations, because he couldn't do sophisticated shooting of "doubles", and thus "Aaron3" (as he's called in this analysis http://www.nobleworld.biz/images/Gendler.pdf) coming into the frame in the doorway seems like it's just the drugged Aaron waking up or something.

[–] the-author 10 years ago

It comes down to bad camera work, actually terrible.
I wish Shane wouldn't have taken down all 'the answers' that were posted on his former Primer forum. So many questions were answered by myself and a few others (the mighty Vode). Shane decided that he didn't want people to 'cheat' the film. At least most of the understanding is still available from the book, The Primer Universe.

Best unknown feature at IMDB.com
http://www.imdb.com/features/video/browse/

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sm-meehan 10 years ago

But the movie itself should be self-explanoratory. I studied film (though I ended up in a different profession) and more than one lecturer told us something along the lines of "If you have to explain your movie to a smart person, you've failed."

I've debated this point myself. However, I've concluded there is something uniquely cool about a film that requires not only additional viewings, but perhaps even some ancillary assistance as well. With Primer, I understood much of it after several viewings. I did pick up some insights on these boards but was able to dissect much of it myself; however, Carruth's more recent project 'Upstream Color' confused the hell out of me upon first viewing. However, thanks to insights from imdb boards, pieces starting coming together. As a result, the second viewing was extremely rewarding, with all sorts of insights and ah-ha moments i'd been blind to initially. A puzzle can be rewarding, even if you need help to complete it and/or have to continually come back to it, and I think a film can be the same way

[–] jackward84 10 years ago

Call me stupid, but for this reason I did not enjoy the movie.

Between struggling to hear what was going on, the story moving too quickly, difficult concepts and the secrets the characters hid from each other, I spent the movie more confused and constantly trying to catch up with what was going on. After reviewing explanations of what actually happened, it turned out I did actually understand most of what happened. There just wasn't time to process or enjoy it.

So now, I could rewatch the movie to understand it while it plays out, but the plot is actually very simple and not particularly interesting, once you know what happened. There are more interesting movies with simpler themes, such as Time Crimes or Triangle.